Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: September 19 To September 25, 2022

NOMINAL INDEX

Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 884 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 905

LOTUS PAY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 884

SHREYA BHARDWAJ THROUGH HER GUARDIAN v. SANSKRITI SCHOOL AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 885

SANJEEV KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 886

SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR GARG v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 887

TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. HAKUNAMATATA TATA FOUNDERS & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 888

GURDEEP SINGH v. STATE and other connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 889

Touchstone Holdings Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 890

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV) UNIT– 4(3) v. XIONGWEI LI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 891

AAKASH CHOUDHARY v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR and another connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 892

VASUNDHRA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. vs KIRAT VINODBHAI JADVANI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 893

AMITA VASHISHT versus TARUN VEDI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 894

VINOD RAWAT v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 895

WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES INC. vs RAAJ COMPUTER 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 896

X v. State of NCT of Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 897

X v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 898

Court on its own motion v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 899

X v. Y 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 900

R.S BHARGAVA v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 901

PANKAJ KUMAR v. BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 902

SARVJEET SINGH v. STATE(NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 903

RAJESH GIRI v. SUBHASH MITTAL & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 904

Curil Tradex Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 905

1. Payment Aggregators Fall Within Definition Of Payment System, RBI Can Issue Guidelines For Efficient Management: Delhi High Court

Title: LOTUS PAY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 884

The Delhi High Court has ruled that payment aggregators fall within the definition of designated payment system under Section 23A of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 and that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has the power to issue guidelines for efficient management for such payment systems.

A division bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju passed the ruling while dismissing a plea filed by Lotus Pay Solutions Private Limited, a company engaged in the business of providing recurring payment solutions for businesses through an authorised payment system, challenging Clauses 3, 4 and 8 of the circular dated March 17, 2020 issued by RBI titled "Guidelines on Regulation of Payment Aggregators and Payment Gateway".

2. Sanskriti School Admissions: Delhi HC Says Delhi Judicial Service Cannot Be Included In Civil Services Category For Reservation Benefit

Title: SHREYA BHARDWAJ THROUGH HER GUARDIAN v. SANSKRITI SCHOOL AND ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 885

Dismissing the petition filed by the daughter of a lower court judge for admission under government quota in the Sanskriti School, the Delhi High Court has said Delhi Judicial Service officers cannot be included in the category of Central Officers (Group A) category for the purposes of the reservation scheme in the educational institution.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh passed the verdict on a petition contending that a judicial officer, who is holding a Civil Group A Gazetted Post by virtue of Rule 3(c) of the Delhi Judicial Rules 1970, has to be treated on a par with a government servant holding corresponding post in accordance with Rule 33 of DJS Rules.

60 percent seats in Sanskriti School are reserved for children of officials of Civil Services, Defence Cadre and allied Services like Group-A Civil Service.

The Court in the order said the reservation made by the School for admission was in the nature of welfare measures for a limited category of Government Officers and that the categories included in Quota did not specify the Delhi Judicial Service.

3. COVID-19: Delhi High Court Closes Plea Challenging Centre's Permission For Clinical Trials Of Covaxin Among 2-18 Yrs Old

Title: SANJEEV KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 886

The Delhi High Court has disposed of a plea filed during the second wave of COVID-19 against Centre's permission for conducting Phase II and III clinical trials of Covaxin in the age group of 2 to 18 years.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad took note of the Supreme Court's judgment in Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India & Ors. wherein it was held that Centre's policy on COVID-19 vaccination policy was reasonable.

The Apex Court had rejected the contention that restricted emergency use approvals had been granted to COVISHIELD and COVAXIN in haste, without thorough review of the relevant data. It was also observed that the challenge to the procedures adopted by the expert bodies while granting regulatory approval to the vaccines on the ground of lack of transparency cannot be entertained.

4. Delay In FSL Reports Where Cause Of Death Unknown Makes Victim Family Suffer, May Lead To Degradation Of Samples: Delhi HC

Title: SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR GARG v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 887

The Delhi High Court has said that the delay in getting scientific reports related to investigations not only has a high social cost but leads to extreme suffering of the victim's family as they remain unaware of the exact cause of death.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said the delay for "whatever reason" cannot be countenanced under law and may even lead to "degradation or putrefaction of the samples" negating the very purpose of examination.

The court made the observation while expressing concern over an inordinate delay in forwarding of histopathological examination report of a 14-year-old boy whose family claimed that he had died under suspicious circumstances.

5. Mere Geographical Presence Of Website And Customers' Ability To Access It Sufficient For Granting Injunction In Trademark Infringement Cases: Delhi HC

Title: TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. HAKUNAMATATA TATA FOUNDERS & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 888

The Delhi High Court has held that mere looming presence of a website in a geography and ability of the customers to access the same is sufficient while granting relief of injunction in matters pertaining to trademark infringement.

A division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri added that in trademark infringement cases, it is the possibility of confusion and deception in the mind of public due to infringing trademark that is good enough for the court to grant injunction.

"Even if a website is not directed at customers in a particular country, the fact that they are not restricted by the website to have access to it, is enough to characterise it as targeting. Targeting need not be a very aggressive act of marketing aiming at a particular set of customers," the Court said.

6. Burden Of Proof Lies On Accused When Last Seen Together With Deceased: Delhi High Court

Title: GURDEEP SINGH v. STATE and other connected matter

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 889

The Delhi High Court has said that in a case where the accused is last seen together with the deceased, the prosecution is exempted to prove exact happening of the incident as the accused himself would have "special knowledge" of the incident. The burden of proof as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act in such case would be on the accused, said the court

Section 106 provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.

"Therefore, last seen together itself is not a conclusive proof but along with other circumstances surrounding the incident, like relations between the accused and the deceased, enmity between them, previous history of hostility, recovery of weapon from the accused, etc. non- explanation of death of the deceased, may lead to a presumption of guilt," a division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal observed.

7. Reassessment Notices Issued Between 1st April 2021 To 30th June, 2021 Not Time Barred: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Touchstone Holdings Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 890

The Delhi High Court has held that the reassessment notices issued between 1st April 2021 and 30th June 2021, will be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the re-assessment notice dated 29.06.2021, which has been issued within the extended period of limitation, is not time-barred.

8. Delhi High Court Permits Huawei CEO Xiongwei Li To Travel Abroad Subject To Depositing FDR Of Rs. 5 Crores

Title: DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV) UNIT– 4(3) v. XIONGWEI LI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 891

Upholding a Trial Court order by which look out circular (LOC) issued against Xiongwei Li, CEO of Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Private Limited was quashed, the Delhi High Court permitted him to travel abroad subject to depositing of an FDR of Rs. 5 crores.

Justice Anu Malhotra added that the condition so imposed will be forfeited on account of Xiongwei Li's non-joining of the investigation and non-appearance as and when directed by the Trial Court.

"…further the respondent (Xiongwei Li) shall also adhere to the conditions imposed vide order dated 17.8.2022 in the bail order of the learned Trial Court of informing the complainant seven days prior to leaving India," the Court directed further.

9. Legal Drafting: Delhi HC Asks Lawyers To Confine To Facts In Bail Pleas, Skip Adding Judgment Extracts

Title: AAKASH CHOUDHARY v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR and another connected matter

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 892

Noting that lawyers add elaborative judgment extracts while drafting bail pleas, the Delhi High Court has requested counsels to adhere to "basic principles of pleading" and mention only facts, legal provisions and grounds on which bail is sought.

Justice Talwant Singh observed that there is no need for the drafting counsels to attach copies of the judgements along with pleadings as it results in making them too bulky.

Stating that the lawyers are at liberty to cite judgements at the time of arguments, the Judge added:

"These citations may be handed over to the Court Master at the time of arguments or they may be filed online just before the petitions are listed for final arguments. I earnestly hope that the learned drafting counsels will bear this in mind in future."

10. 'Vasundhra' A Common Name In India, No Exclusive Right Can Be Granted: Delhi HC on Jewellery Brand's Case Against Gujarati Businessman

Title: VASUNDHRA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. vs KIRAT VINODBHAI JADVANI & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 893

Refusing to grant an ad-interim injunction in favour of a known Delhi-based jewellery showroom, the Delhi High Court Wednesday said 'Vasundhra' is a common name in India and an exclusive right to use the same cannot be granted.

The court made the observation in an order passed on an application filed by Vasundhra Jewellers, which has a showroom in Pitampura. The company owning the showroom has filed a suit against a Gujarati businessman, who manufactures garments under the name 'Vasundhra Fashion', and sought directions to restrain him from using the mark similar to its trademark - 'Vasundhra Marks'

Justice Navin Chawla at the outset noted that marks of the plaintiff have been duly registered but all of them are 'device marks' and it does not hold any registration in the word 'Vasundhra'.

11. Section 10 CPC 'Eviscerates' Litigant's Right To Expeditious Trial, Must Be Construed Strictly: Delhi HC

Case Title: AMITA VASHISHT versus TARUN VEDI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 894

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure would apply only where the whole subject matter in both the proceedings is identical.

Section 10 CPC prevents the trial of a suit in a matter regarding which there is already a case pending in a court of competent jurisdiction. When the same parties file two or three cases in the same matter, the competent court has the power to stay proceedings of another court.

Justice C Hari Shankar observed that since suits, which are pending before different courts, may often have overlapping issues and result of one may influence the outcome of another, the Code contains various provisions to deal with such contingencies.

12. Witness Must Not Be Re-Summoned In Sexual Offence Cases Where Cross Examination Conducted Extensively: Delhi High Court

Title: VINOD RAWAT v. STATE

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 895

The Delhi High Court has observed that where a cross examination has been conducted extensively, it would be against the mandate of law to re-summon the witness especially in a case of sexual offence.

Observing that the right to fair trial is a constitutional goal and a fundamental right of every individual, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that where evidence sought to be brought on record is essential to issue involved in the matter, the power to summon material witness or examine person in attendance under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure must be invoked.

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by a man accused in a rape case against a Trial Court order dismissing his application under Section 311 of the Code for recalling of two prosecution witnesses including the victim. The FIR was registered under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act.

13. Sale Of Refurbished Hard Disks at Nehru Place: Delhi HC Rules In Favour Of Western Digital On Trademark Infringement

Title: WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES INC. vs RAAJ COMPUTER

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 896

The Delhi High Court has ruled that passing off old and used hard-disk drives, after tampering with their labels and printed circuit board, as new products is clearly an infringement of the trademark of the original manufacturer.

In its decision on a suit filed by Western Digital Technologies Inc (WD) - a known manufacturer of storage devices, the court said passing off plaintiff's goods as new and unused leads to deception, loss and injury to an unwary customer and also dilution of trademarks as well as unfair trade practices.

"The plaintiff is held entitled to damages quantified at Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only), especially keeping in view the recovery made by the Local Commissioner as also the potential loss and injury that the unwary consumer shall suffer on purchasing such counterfeit product from the defendants," said Justice Navin Chawla in the ruling dated September 21.

14. Minor Son Sexually Abused By Father: Delhi High Court Says Matrimonial Discord Between Parents No Ground To Quash FIR

Title: X v. State of NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 897

Dealing with a case where a minor boy was sexually abused by his own father, the Delhi High Court has observed that such cases cannot be treated as cases of matrimonial discord, as the child has his own individual constitutional right to get justice.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma added that it will be highly unfair to deny the child victim the right to get justice merely because the accused was his real father and that his parents had matrimonial discord.

The Court thus refused to quash an FIR registered against the father under Sections 10 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

The father was accused of inappropriately touching his minor son and sexually abusing him on multiple occasions over a period of three years. It was alleged that due to the his acts, the minor child started experiencing extreme night mares and emotional disturbances.

15. Delhi High Court Allows 16-Yr-Old To Terminate Pregnancy After Hospitals' Refusal Over No Police Complaint

Title: X v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 898

Allowing a woman's prayer for immediate termination of the pregnancy of her minor daughter, the Delhi High Court has directed the Centre to ensure that the procedure is done at the national capital's All India Institute of Medical Science on government expenses.

The government and private hospitals had earlier refused to terminate the pregnancy since the family of the teenager was unwilling to report the case to the police.

Section 19 of the POCSO Act makes it mandatory for any person apprehending an offence under the Act is likely to be committed or has knowledge about the same, to report such incident to a Special Juvenile Police Unit or the local police. The medical practitioners also are obliged under law to file a report regarding the pregnancy. 

16. [JJ Act] Extracting Confession From Child Is Unconstitutional, Beyond Scope Of Preliminary Assessment Report: Delhi HC

Case Title: Court on its own motion v. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 899

The Delhi High Court has observed that extracting confession from a child regarding the manner in which the offence was committed by him is unconstitutional and beyond the scope of a preliminary assessment report required to be prepared under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

As per Section 15(1) of the Act, a Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) is required to make a preliminary assessment regarding the juvenile's mental and physical capacity to commit an offence and the ability to understand its consequences along with the circumstances under which allegedly the offence was committed.

However, there are no guidelines as to how the Board would conduct such a preliminary assessment.

The observations have been made by a division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal while dealing with a criminal reference concerning issuance of guidelines to be followed by Juvenile Justice Boards in conducting preliminary assessment to try a juvenile as an adult.

17. Is Wife Entitled To Maintenance When Decree Of Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Is Against Her? Delhi High Court Answers

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 900

The Delhi High Court has ruled that mere presence of a decree of restitution of conjugal rights against the wife does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance from her husband - when it is due to his own conduct she is not able to stay with him.

Emphasising that every case seeking compensation in matrimonial dispute has to be dealt with according to its facts and circumstances, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that every judgment, though filed under the same provision, cannot be painted and penned with the same stroke of a brush.

"Before parting with this case, this Court wants to observe that the Judges dealing with such cases should keep in mind the objective behind Section 125 Cr.P.C ... and the need to give a dignified existence to people ... who need to be maintained lawfully by the persons bound by law ... to maintain them expeditiously and with sensitivity," the Court added.

18. COVID-19: Delhi High Court Allows Unvaccinated Teacher To Resume Duties After AIIMS Says 'At Risk of Allergic Reaction'

Case Title: R.S BHARGAVA v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 901

The Delhi High Court has directed a private school in national capital to allow an unvaccinated teacher to re-join duties after AIIMS concluded that he was at a higher risk of developing an allergic reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine as compared to others.

Justice Rekha Palli directed Delhi Public School, R.K. Puram, to forthwith permit the teacher to join his duties and also release his balance salary alongwith all allowances after deducting 10% amount payable for the period between the time he was restrained to attend the school (November 2, 2021) till the date of his rejoining duty.

After a medical report was furnished by Board of Doctors at AIIMS in August, an order was issued by Delhi Government and the Centre acceding to the teacher's request for exemption from COVID-19 vaccination by treating it as a special case. Earlier, due to Delhi government's orders making it mandatory for all teachers to be 100% vaccinated, he was not allowed to discharge his duties.

The permission to rejoin his duties was subject to a condition that the teacher will observe COVID appropriate behaviour and comply with the guidelines. 

19. Delhi High Court Appeals Senior Lawyers To Pay 'Dignified' Stipend To Juniors

Title: PANKAJ KUMAR v. BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 902

The Delhi High Court has made an appeal to the seniors in legal profession to ensure that stipend paid to their juniors is enough for them to overcome the financial stress and to lead a more dignified life.

"This Court also makes an appeal to seniors in this profession to ensure that the stipend that is paid to their juniors is enough for their juniors to evade the financial stress that accompanies this profession and allows them to lead a more dignified life," said the court.

The division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramon Prasad added that senior lawyers must be more mindful about the financial background of their juniors and called for an empathetic approach considering the "virtuosity of legal profession".

20. Sexual Harassment: Delhi High Court Dismisses Sarvjeet Singh's Plea Seeking Enquiry Against Jasleen Kaur Over 'False Testimony'

Title: SARVJEET SINGH v. STATE(NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 903

Almost three years after he was acquitted in a sexual harassment case, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Sarvjeet Singh demanding a criminal enquiry against Jasleen Kaur, the former St. Stephen's College Student, for allegedly giving false evidence against him during the trial.

Singh, who was acquitted by a trial court in 2019, was accused of harassing and abusing Kaur at a traffic signal in Delhi's Tilak Nagar.

Before the High Court, he had challenged the two orders passed by the trial court dismissing his application under Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure for criminal enquiry against Kaur for allegedly giving false information, false evidence and making false charges against him during the trial.

Upholding the orders passed by the trial and appellate courts, Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain said it has been rightly held that Singh's mere acquittal on benefit of doubt does not attract Section 195 IPC and other offences and the preliminary enquiry under section 340 Cr.P.C.

However, the court granted Singh the liberty to initiate appropriate legal proceedings for defamation, allegedly caused by Kaur, by lodging an FIR or by invoking any other legal remedy. 

Justice Jain said Singh's anxiety can be "very well understood" as the complainant had published the incident in the media and that might have caused loss of reputation to him. It added:

"However, the mere loss of reputation is not sufficient to attract the provisions under section 340 Cr.P.C." 

21. Public Entry To Private Temple On Festivals Does Not Convert It Into Public Temple: Delhi High Court

Title: RAJESH GIRI v. SUBHASH MITTAL & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 904

The Delhi High Court has observed that occasional entry of public to a private temple on some festivals does not convert it into a public temple so as to empower a worshipper to maintain a suit with respect to the title rights of the temple.

Justice C Hari Shankar added that the issue as to whether a temple is a private temple or a temple open to public can only be decided in a trial.

The Court thus dismissed a plea filed by one Rajesh Giri challenging an order passed by the trial court in a civil suit whereby his application for a decree on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was dismissed. The civil suit sought restoration of an Idol and reconversion of a private property into a temple located at Chandni Chowk.

22. Physical Verification Of Business Premises For GST Registration Without Issuing Notice Is Violation Of Principle Of Natural Justice: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Curil Tradex Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 905

The Delhi High Court has held that the physical verification of business premises for GST registration without issuing a notice is a violation of the principle of natural justice.

The division bench of Justice Rajeev Shakdher and Justice Taravitasta Ganju has noted that the proper officer opted to have the petitioner's business premises inspected, albeit without the presence of its authorised representative. Had notice or intimation been given, the glitch could have been overcome.